180
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
The emergence of large developing countries such as China, Brazil, India and
Indonesia on the global stage is bringing about economic and political changes as
well as distinct technological and policy innovations (Berkhout et al. 2011; UNDP
2013). Due to their different cultures, political standpoints and historical memories, these countries may not share the same views or preferred approaches of the
highly industrialized countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (Hurrell and Sengupta 2012; Roberts 2011). Yet, collective
characterization of those countries in terms of governance and approaches to sustainable development—let alone to the bioeconomy—remains limited. There is, therefore, much value in using in-depth cross-country assessments to identify patterns and
understand whether emerging economies do favor a similar approach to development
and, if so, how to characterize that approach.
Based on the assessments of Brazil, India, and Indonesia as case studies of
pluralist emerging democracies, this chapter conducts a comparative analysis of
how such countries have pursued biofuel policies. This assessment serves the double
purpose of drawing lessons from and for development patterns of those countries
and specifically for bioeconomy sectors based on agriculture. The analysis has three
foci: (i) understanding the links between particular bioeconomy policy strategies
and social outcomes; (ii) analyzing how agency is taking place within emerging
economy contexts and, in particular, the roles of the state as a prominent actor
in all three case study countries; and (iii) examining whether and how large-scale
biofuel production, as the most prominent bioeconomy sector to date, has increased
or reduced North-South inequalities. This examination can answer both the critics
who argue that biofuels are a form of neocolonialism and those who advocate
for biofuels as a way to help the Global South catch up with the Global North.
Finally, the concluding section discusses the similarities of approach to biomassbased production in emerging economies and the extent to which a typical pattern
exists.
8.2 Linking Bioeconomy Policy Strategies to Social Impacts
While much has been said—positively and negatively—about the social impacts of
bio-based production, be they rural development opportunities or resource dispossession, seldom are those impacts linked to particular policy designs in an ex-post
examination. Therefore, this in-depth assessment of policies in Brazil, India, and
Indonesia offers a valuable opportunity to do so. Their biofuel experiences, in turn,
offer a glimpse of what might happen on a yet larger scale if bioeconomy strategies gain traction. Before comparing their policy strategies, however, it is useful to
contrast the case study countries’ energy and agri-food contexts, as any comparative
considerations must consider them.
8 Bioeconomy Lessons from Biofuel Policies …
The emergence of large developing countries such as China, Brazil, India and
Indonesia on the global stage is bringing about economic and political changes as
well as distinct technological and policy innovations (Berkhout et al. 2011; UNDP
2013). Due to their different cultures, political standpoints and historical memories, these countries may not share the same views or preferred approaches of the
highly industrialized countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD) (Hurrell and Sengupta 2012; Roberts 2011). Yet, collective
characterization of those countries in terms of governance and approaches to sustainable development—let alone to the bioeconomy—remains limited. There is, therefore, much value in using in-depth cross-country assessments to identify patterns and
understand whether emerging economies do favor a similar approach to development
and, if so, how to characterize that approach.
Based on the assessments of Brazil, India, and Indonesia as case studies of
pluralist emerging democracies, this chapter conducts a comparative analysis of
how such countries have pursued biofuel policies. This assessment serves the double
purpose of drawing lessons from and for development patterns of those countries
and specifically for bioeconomy sectors based on agriculture. The analysis has three
foci: (i) understanding the links between particular bioeconomy policy strategies
and social outcomes; (ii) analyzing how agency is taking place within emerging
economy contexts and, in particular, the roles of the state as a prominent actor
in all three case study countries; and (iii) examining whether and how large-scale
biofuel production, as the most prominent bioeconomy sector to date, has increased
or reduced North-South inequalities. This examination can answer both the critics
who argue that biofuels are a form of neocolonialism and those who advocate
for biofuels as a way to help the Global South catch up with the Global North.
Finally, the concluding section discusses the similarities of approach to biomassbased production in emerging economies and the extent to which a typical pattern
exists.
8.2 Linking Bioeconomy Policy Strategies to Social Impacts
While much has been said—positively and negatively—about the social impacts of
bio-based production, be they rural development opportunities or resource dispossession, seldom are those impacts linked to particular policy designs in an ex-post
examination. Therefore, this in-depth assessment of policies in Brazil, India, and
Indonesia offers a valuable opportunity to do so. Their biofuel experiences, in turn,
offer a glimpse of what might happen on a yet larger scale if bioeconomy strategies gain traction. Before comparing their policy strategies, however, it is useful to
contrast the case study countries’ energy and agri-food contexts, as any comparative
considerations must consider them.